Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-25
Synopses OF DECISIONS BENDER d ut the
Present Tyior Sitting Of ehu fexss
Higher Courts.
Supreme Court and Commission of Appeal
Renderings In Some Long DON
tested Gases.
Commission of Appeals.

the case. Held: The statute and tn
rules Of the Supreme court require ths
al errors not distinctly specified in tn
sidered waived by the Supreme court. NJ
fundamental error. The judgment is on
which the District court could legal
render. Affirmed. Colls1d, j.
W. w Glasgow VS.. S. E. Owen; appea
from McLsnnsn. Suit by appellee sgains
appellant to recover damages for mali
ciOus prosecution. The court charged
the jury in effect that if Owen was acting
in obedience to an order Of the Commits
! sioners court of Hill county in opening
the road in good faith and crossed over
into McLennan county and cut GlasgoW's
| fences, the latter would still be liable in
damages for prosecuting Owen for the
trespass if he did SO upon malice without
probable cause. This is assigned as
error. Held: Not free from error. The
| Jury should have been left TO consider
4 the fact OF Owen crossing over into Nc
| Lehman county in determining whether
there was probable cause for the prosecu,
| ton. Glasgow relied on the fact that the
fence was cut in McLennan county to
show probable cause for the prosecution,
1 aAO dlOO W SAOW q Wdnt VI udIiSC' = uC
charge given excluded Glasgow's de-
| Tense to a certain extent. Further
held: The advice Of an attorney
that an offense has been committed upon
full and fair statement of all the facts
will not justify a prosecution; it is not a
complete defense; it is fact to be con-
sidered by the jury. Appellant asked the
court below to instruct the jury that ap-
,NaIIon no
was not at an end. This charge was re-
| fused, and the refusal assigned is error.
Held: Error. The cause of action was
not complete until the prosection was
ended. The writ could not be maintained
st all If there was no final conviction.
Reversed and remanded. Collard, j.
Bignam ct al. VS.. Mcdowell ct Isl; ap-
peal from Bell. Action of trespass to try
title. The court below Instructed the
Jury as follows: 'If no survey has in
patent for other surveys and for natural
and artificial objects are such that
thereby the land conveyed bY the patent
can be found and identified by other sur
veys surrounding the same, this in law is
sufficient description" This clause of
| he charge is arraigned as error. Held:
A5 Oh oO5bLGSG p4OpOSlblOA VA Ia tNO11CNtt
but not applicable TO the facts Of this case,
There are no ''calIs in the patent for
other surveys" by which the land ''can
be identified by the surveys surrounding
it," Further held: Primarily the land
granted must be identified by the de-
scrIption given in the grant. It is now
EsReL settled that the highest calls in i'm
portance and weight usually employed in
r-,+o or oh or
as rivers, creeks, ETC.; second artificial
objects, as marked lines, monuments,
etc; third, course and distance. The
lowest grade course or distance is made
to prevail yer the highest grade, where
upon applying the calls of the grant to
the land, the surrounding and connected
to explain the discrepancy,
show that course or distance,
is the most certain and reliable evidence
of the true locality of the grant. A failure
Of the court below to charge the law as
manded. Acker, j.
A. B. Gather vs.. E. G. Haurick; ap
peal from Falls. Suit of trespass to try
title. Memoranda on the back of q grant
to the effect that said grant conveyed a
SOOu bttlc W No6
over appellants objections to be read to
the jury. Held: Clearly inadmissible,
this beng in the nature of hearsay testi-
monyI Further held: The court did not
err is refusing to permit defendant to
prove that there were other joint owners
Of the land in controversy beside plaintiff,
defendant not Offering to connect himself
with such title. AS general rule to con-
stitute one possessor in good
faith, he must not only believe that
he is the true owner, and have reasonable
grounds for the belief, but he must
be ignorant that his title is con-
tested by one having better right.
Appellant knew of the claim of appellee,
but he also knew that the title under
which appellee claimed had been pro-
nounced forgery by the District court
of Williamson county and that the 1udg
ment had been affirmed on appeal to the
Supreme court. We believe that knowl
edge Of these facts would, to the mind Of
the ordinary citizen, be reasonable and
strong grounds to believe that appellee's
title was invalid, and as consequence
the state would have the right to transfer
the title to him. Issues not submitted in
the court below will not be considered
here. Reversed and remanded. Maltbie,
J.
Supreme Court.